High‐dimensional propensity scores for empirical covariate selection in secondary database studies: Planning, implementation, and reporting
暂无分享,去创建一个
J. Rassen | S. Schneeweiss | A. Pottegård | R. Neugebauer | P. Blin | S. Toh | S. Kloss | R. Platt | Sebastian Schneeweiss | Robert W Platt | Sebastian Kloss | Romain S Neugebauer | Romain S. Neugebauer
[1] N. Pratt,et al. Antibiotic utilisation in primary and revision total hip replacement patients: A registry linkage cohort study of 106 253 patients using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry , 2022, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[2] L. Smeeth,et al. Transparency of high‐dimensional propensity score analyses: Guidance for diagnostics and reporting , 2022, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[3] Asad Haris,et al. A Targeted Approach to Confounder Selection for High-Dimensional Data , 2021, 2112.08495.
[4] J. Rassen,et al. Effectiveness of the Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S COVID Vaccine , 2021, medRxiv.
[5] S. Schneeweiss,et al. STaRT-RWE: structured template for planning and reporting on the implementation of real world evidence studies , 2021, BMJ.
[6] Alan R. Ellis,et al. Using propensity scores to estimate effects of treatment initiation decisions: State of the science , 2020, Statistics in medicine.
[7] L. Smeeth,et al. Implementing high‐dimensional propensity score principles to improve confounder adjustment in UK electronic health records , 2020, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[8] M. Ishimaru. Introduction to High-dimensional Propensity Score Analysis , 2020, Annals of Clinical Epidemiology.
[9] J. Benichou,et al. Comparative Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran or Rivaroxaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonists: A High-Dimensional Propensity Score Matched New Users Cohort Study in the French National Healthcare Data System SNDS , 2019, American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs.
[10] J. Benichou,et al. Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Standard or Reduced Dose Dabigatran vs. Rivaroxaban in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation , 2019, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.
[11] H. Yasunaga,et al. Association between perioperative oral care and postoperative pneumonia after cancer resection: conventional versus high-dimensional propensity score matching analysis , 2019, Clinical Oral Investigations.
[12] J. Benichou,et al. Effectiveness and safety of 110 or 150 mg dabigatran vs. vitamin K antagonists in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation , 2018, British journal of clinical pharmacology.
[13] Antoine Chambaz,et al. Scalable collaborative targeted learning for high-dimensional data , 2017, Statistical methods in medical research.
[14] Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al. Automated data-adaptive analytics for electronic healthcare data to study causal treatment effects , 2018, Clinical epidemiology.
[15] Martijn J Schuemie,et al. Evaluating large-scale propensity score performance through real-world and synthetic data experiments. , 2018, International journal of epidemiology.
[16] Kenneth Rockwood,et al. Measuring Frailty in Medicare Data: Development and Validation of a Claims-Based Frailty Index , 2018, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.
[17] Mohammad Ehsanul Karim,et al. Can We Train Machine Learning Methods to Outperform the High-dimensional Propensity Score Algorithm? , 2017, Epidemiology.
[18] E. Garbe,et al. The Potential of High‐Dimensional Propensity Scores in Health Services Research: An Exemplary Study on the Quality of Care for Elective Percutaneous Coronary Interventions , 2018, Health services research.
[19] Cheng Ju,et al. Using Super Learner Prediction Modeling to Improve High-dimensional Propensity Score Estimation , 2018, Epidemiology.
[20] Olaf Klungel,et al. Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.
[21] David Madigan,et al. Good practices for real‐world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on real‐world evidence in health care decision making , 2017, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[22] Nicholas Moore,et al. The national healthcare system claims databases in France, SNIIRAM and EGB: Powerful tools for pharmacoepidemiology , 2017, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[23] S. Hernández-Díaz,et al. Matching Weights to Simultaneously Compare Three Treatment Groups: Comparison to Three-way Matching , 2017, Epidemiology.
[24] Krista F. Huybrechts,et al. A Propensity-score-based Fine Stratification Approach for Confounding Adjustment When Exposure Is Infrequent , 2017, Epidemiology.
[25] J. Hallas,et al. Performance of the High‐dimensional Propensity Score in a Nordic Healthcare Model , 2017, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.
[26] Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al. Variable Selection for Confounding Adjustment in High-dimensional Covariate Spaces When Analyzing Healthcare Databases , 2017, Epidemiology.
[27] Peter M. Steiner,et al. The Mechanics of Omitted Variable Bias: Bias Amplification and Cancellation of Offsetting Biases , 2016, Journal of causal inference.
[28] E. Rahme,et al. Performance of the high-dimensional propensity score in adjusting for unmeasured confounders , 2016, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
[29] Jacques LeLorier,et al. Head to head comparison of the propensity score and the high-dimensional propensity score matching methods , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
[30] A. Arana,et al. Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology , 2016 .
[31] Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al. Regularized Regression Versus the High-Dimensional Propensity Score for Confounding Adjustment in Secondary Database Analyses. , 2015, American journal of epidemiology.
[32] Robert W. Platt,et al. On the role of marginal confounder prevalence – implications for the high‐dimensional propensity score algorithm , 2015, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[33] Romain Neugebauer,et al. High‐dimensional propensity score algorithm in comparative effectiveness research with time‐varying interventions , 2015, Statistics in medicine.
[34] O. Klungel,et al. Propensity score methods and unobserved covariate imbalance: comments on "squeezing the balloon". , 2014, Health services research.
[35] Jeremy A Rassen,et al. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects , 2014, Statistics in medicine.
[36] John M Brooks,et al. Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance. , 2013, Health services research.
[37] Scott R. Smith,et al. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User's Guide , 2013 .
[38] I. Pigeot,et al. High-dimensional versus conventional propensity scores in a comparative effectiveness study of coxibs and reduced upper gastrointestinal complications , 2013, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
[39] S. Schneeweiss,et al. Practice of Epidemiology Implications of M Bias in Epidemiologic Studies: a Simulation Study , 2022 .
[40] Romain Neugebauer,et al. Causal inference in epidemiological studies with strong confounding , 2012, Statistics in medicine.
[41] Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al. Using high‐dimensional propensity scores to automate confounding control in a distributed medical product safety surveillance system , 2012, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[42] I. Shpitser,et al. A New Criterion for Confounder Selection , 2011, Biometrics.
[43] J. Myers,et al. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. , 2011, American journal of epidemiology.
[44] Sengwee Toh,et al. Confounding adjustment via a semi‐automated high‐dimensional propensity score algorithm: an application to electronic medical records , 2011, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[45] M Alan Brookhart,et al. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. , 2011, American journal of epidemiology.
[46] M Alan Brookhart,et al. The implications of propensity score variable selection strategies in pharmacoepidemiology: an empirical illustration , 2011, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[47] J. Avorn,et al. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study. , 2010, American journal of epidemiology.
[48] Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research , 2010, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.
[49] M Alan Brookhart,et al. Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[50] P. Austin. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples , 2009, Statistics in medicine.
[51] J. Avorn,et al. High-dimensional Propensity Score Adjustment in Studies of Treatment Effects Using Health Care Claims Data , 2009, Epidemiology.
[52] J. Avorn,et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.
[53] Til Stürmer,et al. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. , 2006, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.
[54] J. Robins,et al. A Structural Approach to Selection Bias , 2004, Epidemiology.
[55] M Soledad Cepeda,et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.
[56] M Maclure,et al. Performance of comorbidity scores to control for confounding in epidemiologic studies using claims data. , 2001, American journal of epidemiology.
[57] J. Robins,et al. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. , 2000, Epidemiology.
[58] J. Pearl,et al. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. , 1999, Epidemiology.
[59] J. Concato,et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[60] J. Robins,et al. Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders. , 1992, Biometrics.
[61] D. Rubin,et al. Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .
[62] D. Rubin,et al. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .
[63] I. Bross. Spurious effects from an extraneous variable. , 1966, Journal of chronic diseases.